Going against the current climate

James Kirby

Professor Ian Plimer says there has always been global warming and cooling, and current fears are alarmist. Photo: Robert Pearce

An eminent scientist struggled to have his work rejecting global warming published.

THIS must surely be the story of the year from the publishing industry. In the central Victorian town of Ballan, Anthony Cappello runs a modestly sized independent publishing firm called Connor Court. He does a line in conservative books, religious biographies, that sort of thing.

This time last year a celebrated geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, came to his door. He could not find a publisher for his latest book. The big brand names had all said no, even Random House, which had published him before.

His work, Heaven and Earth, is a radical rejection of global warming.

Cappello had little to lose: his three-year-old company had never had a bestseller; his typical print run was 3500 books. Cappello knew Plimer was an author in a bigger league and he did a print run of 5000. It sold out and another batch of 5000 sold out too.

In the 12 months since Heaven and Earth was first published, it has become an independent bestseller, with more than 30,000 copies sold in Australia. The US has taken up the book and 20,000 have been sold in a few months.

Advertisement

And Plimer … well, he's starting to get heard. But it hasn't been easy.

A professor from the University of Adelaide and a winner of the prestigious Eureka Prize, Plimer is by any measure a distinguished scientist.

He's also a miner. He's spent years with resources companies such as North Broken Hill and he still sits on the board of two ASX listed stocks, CBH Resources and Ivanhoe Mines.

On that basis alone it should not be surprising that it's been the conservatives in business and cultural life who have given him a platform. His best-known supporter is Nigel Lawson, the chancellor of the exchequer, or treasurer, during Britain's Thatcher regime.

He also does himself few favours with an abrasive larrikin style that underplays the importance of his claims. Moreover, Heaven and Earth is absurdly long - 500 pages, 2000 footnotes - with enough factual inconsistencies and ill-advised references to some ''loopy'' thinkers to give his critics plenty of ammunition.

His most acerbic critic, George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, accuses Plimer of fudging and manipulating data for his own purposes. In response, Plimer accuses scientists and commentators who disagree with him of doing something very similar.

Plimer, in essence, says that there is no unprecedented global warming occurring. There has always been warming and cooling, and there has been no evidence of warming since 1998.

He says much of the fear about human-created global warming is alarmist. He cites a terrific story from the mid-1970s (a dramatic time in the stockmarkets very like our own era) when TIME magazine ran a cover story on global cooling.

Plimer claims that many of the forecasts that underpin global plans for sustainability programs or carbon pollution programs are based on flawed computer modelling.

Last week I was asked to chair a question-and-answer session for Plimer at the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), a non-political business association.

I was sceptical about associating with Plimer and so were many of those attending. Just before Plimer took to the stage, a senior AICD member whispered: "We've had more complaints about hosting this guy than anyone I can remember.''

By the time Plimer had finished his address, one thing had become clear - climate change is a debate in which one side has dominated media coverage.

Between now and Christmas we are going to hear more about climate change than ever before.

Debates over the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will dominate our political debate and the debate itself is threatening to split the Liberal-National Party Coalition as the Nationals want agricultural products excluded from the new system.

Some business people, such as Dick Warburton of Caltex, are openly sceptical of global warming arguments. Some, such as BHP's Don Argus, are sceptical that a ''market-based'' ETS-style system is the answer. Meanwhile, the Federal Government wants ETS legislation wrapped up before December so Australia can make a larger contribution to the Copenhagen meeting, which is aiming to reach international agreement on reducing global emissions.

Like most investors or business people, I am not a scientist and I can't tell if either side is fudging the figures. But I know that when a highly qualified scientist is sidelined and demonised to the point he can't get a book published - and that book later becomes a bestseller - we may not be getting the full story.